...
Looking back, honestly I should have just gone right to the top. The enjoyment and "smoothness" in the stringing process was better and better with each upgrade.

I would take crank over drop weight, not because I think crank is better or worse, but because I think it is more enjoyable to use.

Similarly, I would take electronic over crank, not because I think electronic is better, but because I find it more enjoyable to use.

Get the most machine you can afford. You'll be happy you did.

Click to expand...

The reason you appreciate a better machine, the reason you enjoy it more, is that you used worse machines at some point. I think it's better to upgrade, because that process is more enjoyable than stringing itself (for most people), so why cheat yourself out of it.

The reason you appreciate a better machine, the reason you enjoy it more, is that you used worse machines at some point. I think it's better to upgrade, because that process is more enjoyable than stringing itself (for most people), so why cheat yourself out of it.

Click to expand...

Well, my point (though I didn't come out and say it very well, or perhaps even at all) was that I would have spent a lot less in the long run if I had just gotten the high-end machine to begin with.

And the upgrade process, save for the moment of excitement you get when you buy and first open a new machine, wasn't really worth it, I don't think.

I enjoyed stringing almost from the beginning (was a little frustrating in the very very beginning, but I quickly got into a groove and liked it) but almost immediately sensed that I would enjoy it more with a better machine. My upgrade path was a bit of a learning process. I didn't really know what features were important to me, b/c at the start, I didn't really understand what various features would offer me (or how they would make the process more enjoyable). It was upon upgrading that I learned that.

But if I had it to do over again, I'd go right for the best machine I could afford, and I'd advise others to do the same. I'm pretty sure anyone who does will not be disappointed.

I have an older machine, but it was never meant to be an "entry level" machine, and I love it. It's a crank/LO. It's just like a neos, it's a Gamma 4000. "professional" machines just give you so much more accuracy.

I've strung about a dozen racquets so far on it, and all of my string jobs are WAY more consistent than they ever were on an entry level drop weight machine.

I'm not saying they're "perfect" string jobs, there's definitely flaws in my technique. I always tend to lose some tension on a few particular pulls on the mains -- but the point is, with a consistent machine, my jobs are consistent, so I have the same tension loss on all my racquets. This means that all the frames in my bag feel the same, work the same, and react the same. It increases predictability on the court.

I think its a lot harder to remain very consistent with entry level, budget grade machines. you can still certainly string them fine, but if you string 5 racquets in a row, all with the same tension and strings/frames, how consistent will they be?

the gamma progressive ELS is about the same price as the neos 1000.
the gamma is constant pull electric but sort of entry level
the neos is a great lockout machine.

which one would you prefer? with both machines being same price but different design

Click to expand...

What machine everyone likes should not be your determining factor. Both are good machines and have good support. The big difference between these two machines are:

2 point versus 6 point - I prefer the 6 PT and with the newer C side supports the side supports will be much less easier to get around. Because the ELS does not have a self centering turntable or a single adjustment for the side supports the Prince will be a little faster for mounting.

Table top versus stand up - the stand makes the Prince more ergonomic

Crank versus electronic constant pull - there are loads of threads talking about this but many don't really understand how a crank works and how good they really are.

Swivel clamps versus glide bars - if you plan to do one piece or ATW patterns I would go with the swivel clamps. Using glide bar clamps makes it a little more troublesome to transition from mains to crosses and vice versa.

What machine everyone likes should not be your determining factor. Both are good machines and have good support. The big difference between these two machines are:

2 point versus 6 point - I prefer the 6 PT and with the newer C side supports the side supports will be much less easier to get around. Because the ELS does not have a self centering turntable or a single adjustment for the side supports the Prince will be a little faster for mounting.

Table top versus stand up - the stand makes the Prince more ergonomic

Crank versus electronic constant pull - there are loads of threads talking about this but many don't really understand how a crank works and how good they really are.

Swivel clamps versus glide bars - if you plan to do one piece or ATW patterns I would go with the swivel clamps. Using glide bar clamps makes it a little more troublesome to transition from mains to crosses and vice versa.

Click to expand...

Counterpoint -

Sounds like you are giving your likes which is contradictory

I don't like six point mounts. I have never had nor heard of anyone properly mounting a racquet on a Neos and having problems or hurting the frame.

I think I would like double action clamps, but truthfully, I don't see where single action (glide bar) are in any way deficient for ATW patterns. Fan patterns, yes, but you do get a set of floating clamps for the few you do.

the gamma progressive ELS is about the same price as the neos 1000.
the gamma is constant pull electric but sort of entry level
the neos is a great lockout machine.

which one would you prefer? with both machines being same price but different design

Click to expand...

This is a tough one, IMO. I really like and have been very happy with Gamma machines. However, the Progression ELS is a 6pt mount and the NEOS is a 2pt. In THIS PARTICULAR case, I give the edge to the NEOS.

I like 2pt personally (I have a Gamma 2pt and have owned Gamma 6pt). I don't necessarily consider one better than the other, but 2pt definitely does "stay out of the way" more, which is really nice.

But for me, the clincher in this case isn't the number of points, but it is that the Gamma Progression ELS is a 6pt NON self centering 6pt, and it has INDIVIDUAL knobs for each of the arms. I find this to be a little tedious and somewhat annoying, which is why I (personally) would prefer the NEOS mounting system, I think.

Now if it were between the mount system of say a Gamma 6004 6pt SC vs a NEOS, then I'd be much less inclined to recommend the NEOS and would encourage a strong hard look at the 6004. The 6004 SC mount system is just wonderful. Super quick and easy and really nice to use.

sstchur not to disagree with you but you or I have different concepts of what self-centering is (I think.) As I understand it with self centering the center of the racket from head to throat is always centered on the string bed, not left to right. With self centering the distance from the pivot point on the turn table to the top and bottom of the frame is always exactly the same every time you mount a racket no matter what racket you mount. Without self centering the distance from the bottom and or top support can be adjusted individually.

Sounds like you are saying the outside supports (with one adjustment) centers the racket which is self centering. You could have individual adjustments for both the top and bottom and or side supports. One is self centering one is not.

What you are saying (in other words) is it is impossible to have self centering on a two point machine . There a couple of (and this one) 2 pt point self centering machines[/URL] offered by Gamma that I would prefer over the NEOS just because of self centering feature.

EDIT; Now does self centering matter? I think so because if the racket is always centered so the angle to the tensioner (from the frame) is always the same. If the angle is the same the friction is the same for a given tension / racket. If the friction remains the same the tension remains the same instead of varying from racket to racket you will have a consistent string bed.

EDIT; Now does self centering matter? I think so because if the racket is always centered so the angle to the tensioner (from the frame) is always the same. If the angle is the same the friction is the same for a given tension / racket. If the friction remains the same the tension remains the same instead of varying from racket to racket you will have a consistent string bed.

Click to expand...

I'll play irvin's advocate here....

for the same frame model, the angle is accurate on a Neos and therefore consistent.

even between frames, the difference is so minuscule as not to matter or be detectable.

for the same frame model, the angle is accurate on a Neos and therefore consistent.

even between frames, the difference is so minuscule as not to matter or be detectable.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should explain that to the USRSA. They seem to be under the opinion that if you mount a Prince O Port racket higher on the turntable you will decrease the number of crosses pulled to the top of the O Port. The only way you can do that is change the angle. Clearly they do not have the insight you do.

sstchur not to disagree with you but you or I have different concepts of what self-centering is (I think.) As I understand it with self centering the center of the racket from head to throat is always centered on the string bed, not left to right. With self centering the distance from the pivot point on the turn table to the top and bottom of the frame is always exactly the same every time you mount a racket no matter what racket you mount. Without self centering the distance from the bottom and or top support can be adjusted individually.

Sounds like you are saying the outside supports (with one adjustment) centers the racket which is self centering. You could have individual adjustments for both the top and bottom and or side supports. One is self centering one is not.

What you are saying (in other words) is it is impossible to have self centering on a two point machine . There a couple of (and this one) 2 pt point self centering machines[/URL] offered by Gamma that I would prefer over the NEOS just because of self centering feature.

EDIT; Now does self centering matter? I think so because if the racket is always centered so the angle to the tensioner (from the frame) is always the same. If the angle is the same the friction is the same for a given tension / racket. If the friction remains the same the tension remains the same instead of varying from racket to racket you will have a consistent string bed.

Click to expand...

No no, I wasn't implying that you can't have SC on a two point mount at all.

I was making a few points, specific to the two machines in question:

1. I personally, prefer 2pt, b/c it stays out of the way more (that's just a personal preference) and I mention it b/c one of the two machines in question is a 2pt.

2. Normally, I really like Gamma machines and would in most cases recommend them highly. In this particular case, I think I would prefer the NEOS 2pt design.

3. Caveat to point 2 -- it's not that I ALWAYS like all 2pt better than 6pt, but in THIS case, I do b/c the Progression is not what Gamma calls their "SC" model.

4. With respect to precisely how we are defining SC, I honestly don't care. I'm not saying "self-centering" as a feature is or isn't an important consideration (maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- that's not the point I'm trying to make). What I'm saying is that those models that Gamma calls "SC" are much more enjoyable to use, in my opinion, because there is a lot less stuff to "fiddle" with when mounting the racquet.

On my 6004 SC for instance, it was just ONE single knob to move both towers in and out at the same time. Then ONE knob to move one set of shoulder mounts, and ONE knob to move the other set.

The Progression has (if I'm not mistaken) individual knobs for each tower and for each shoulder mount.

It's just not as nice to work with when mounting a racquet, IMO.

So my point is that if you're talking any of the Gamma models labeled "SC", then I give Gamma the edge -- I find them nicer to use.

How we are defining SC was not at all part of what I was trying to say.

EDIT: And for the record, we DO have the same definition of self-centering. Your understanding of it is the same as mine. And I also agree that there are 2pt Gammas that are SC which I would take over the NEOS. But I was trying to speak specifically to the two models the OP mentioned.

Maybe you should explain that to the USRSA. They seem to be under the opinion that if you mount a Prince O Port racket higher on the turntable you will decrease the number of crosses pulled to the top of the O Port. The only way you can do that is change the angle. Clearly they do not have the insight you do.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean? How can one mount a racquet higher on the turntable and how can anything decrease the number of crosses on a frame without the obvious, skipping holes.

What does that even mean? How can one mount a racquet higher on the turntable and how can anything decrease the number of crosses on a frame without the obvious, skipping holes.

Click to expand...

When pulling crosses on a Prince O Port once you get past the pivot point on the turn table the crosses will pull to the bottom of the port. I did not say anything about decreasing the number of crosses.

If you move the two standards towards the bottom of the racket there will be fewer crosses at the top of the frame above the pivot point therefore you will have fewer crosses naturally pulling in the top of the port. RSI had a tip on that once a few years ago.

When pulling crosses on a Prince O Port once you get past the pivot point on the turn table the crosses will pull to the bottom of the port. I did not say anything about decreasing the number of crosses.

If you move the two standards towards the bottom of the racket there will be fewer crosses at the top of the frame above the pivot point therefore you will have fewer crosses naturally pulling in the top of the port. RSI had a tip on that once a few years ago.

Click to expand...

It is somewhat clearer now. What two standards?

And what possible difference does this make to feel on the frame? What is the empirical measurement as to the difference on the stringbed?

When I speak of standards I am talking about the top and bottom supports or the 6 and 12 supports. The racket is mounted higher the angle of the string changes and therefore the friction changes. The greater the friction the less the tension.

When I speak of standards I am talking about the top and bottom supports or the 6 and 12 supports. The racket is mounted higher the angle of the string changes and therefore the friction changes. The greater the friction the less the tension.

Click to expand...

that's what I thought you meant. I don't see how this is even possible on the Neos since the top mount is fixed. The bottom mount moves in and out to allow for different head sizes. you cannot then mount the same model frame higher or lower. Ergo, the friction and tension will remain constant.

Maybe you should explain that to the USRSA. They seem to be under the opinion that if you mount a Prince O Port racket higher on the turntable you will decrease the number of crosses pulled to the top of the O Port. The only way you can do that is change the angle. Clearly they do not have the insight you do.

....
...
I would take crank over drop weight, not because I think crank is better or worse, but because I think it is more enjoyable to use.
...
...
Get the most machine you can afford. You'll be happy you did.

Click to expand...

Have you try stringway ML120 or MS200? What a joy to string racquets on a Stringway. I have used crank and to me, Stringway is very enjoyable. I am not going back to crank

Just buy a Stringway ML100, floating or fixed clamps. You'll have extremely consistent stringbeds every time.

Click to expand...

+1 but since the OP was looking at the gamma progress II ELS and the prince NEOS 1000, I would say that ML120 (stand, Concorde system...) is well within the budget. I know I'm lusting after one... just love beautifully designed and built simple mechanical tools.

Here is something I had posted a while back that might help. I posted this almost three years ago 4-27-10. Funny ?

The consistency of the Neos 1000 tension is no LESS precise than a drop weight or a electronic constant pull machine assuming that all are calibrated correctly and assuming that the electronic machine is not one that has the over shoot situation. (mine do not)
The consistency that you speak of is coming more from the stringer regardless of the machine. I own and string on several different types of machines and can easily reproduce the same string bed stiffness regardless of what machine I use.

The fact that the Neos 1000 does not have 306 degrees of rotation is more of a benefit than a negative. As a result of having the tension head located higher, is the primary reasons that you do not have to add 10% of tension when comparing it to a electronic constant pull machine this is because the string is being pulled straight from the string hole with out causing any friction. If the tension head was positioned lower allowing for 360 rotation the tension head would be pulling the string out of the frame downward causing friction causing tension loss.
While the Neos is not the latest technology it has the ability to support the frame and provide consistent string job. The reliability and convenience of the machine's functions, including calibration, and the overall quality enables it to be so user friendly.
The Neos 1000 has been a bench mark and the industry leader, a work horse without any problems for many decades.

Here is something I had posted a while back that might help. I posted this almost three years ago 4-27-10. Funny ?

The consistency of the Neos 1000 tension is no LESS precise than a drop weight or a electronic constant pull machine assuming that all are calibrated correctly and assuming that the electronic machine is not one that has the over shoot situation. (mine do not)
The consistency that you speak of is coming more from the stringer regardless of the machine. I own and string on several different types of machines and can easily reproduce the same string bed stiffness regardless of what machine I use.

The fact that the Neos 1000 does not have 306 degrees of rotation is more of a benefit than a negative. As a result of having the tension head located higher, is the primary reasons that you do not have to add 10% of tension when comparing it to a electronic constant pull machine this is because the string is being pulled straight from the string hole with out causing any friction. If the tension head was positioned lower allowing for 360 rotation the tension head would be pulling the string out of the frame downward causing friction causing tension loss.
While the Neos is not the latest technology it has the ability to support the frame and provide consistent string job. The reliability and convenience of the machine's functions, including calibration, and the overall quality enables it to be so user friendly.
The Neos 1000 has been a bench mark and the industry leader, a work horse without any problems for many decades.

Here is something I had posted a while back that might help. I posted this almost three years ago 4-27-10. Funny ?

The consistency of the Neos 1000 tension is no LESS precise than a drop weight or a electronic constant pull machine assuming that all are calibrated correctly and assuming that the electronic machine is not one that has the over shoot situation. (mine do not)
The consistency that you speak of is coming more from the stringer regardless of the machine. I own and string on several different types of machines and can easily reproduce the same string bed stiffness regardless of what machine I use.

The fact that the Neos 1000 does not have 306 degrees of rotation is more of a benefit than a negative. As a result of having the tension head located higher, is the primary reasons that you do not have to add 10% of tension when comparing it to a electronic constant pull machine this is because the string is being pulled straight from the string hole with out causing any friction. If the tension head was positioned lower allowing for 360 rotation the tension head would be pulling the string out of the frame downward causing friction causing tension loss.
While the Neos is not the latest technology it has the ability to support the frame and provide consistent string job. The reliability and convenience of the machine's functions, including calibration, and the overall quality enables it to be so user friendly.
The Neos 1000 has been a bench mark and the industry leader, a work horse without any problems for many decades.

Click to expand...

I think you're glorifying the NEOS a liiiiittle bit here. I agree that the stringer is as big a variable as the tensioner (if not much, much bigger), but since the tensioning system of a crank relies on the operator, there is a consistency variable regardless implied. Saying that there's no need for a 10% compensation is also a little extreme. The 'rule of thumb' of 10% is due to a systematic difference, not strictly as a variable of pull angle. CP machines often have 360 degree rotation, thus they pull at a lower angle, does this mean the 10% rule of thumb should have an asterisk with it? I don't personally think so. I also think that the overshoot issue is more minor than we commonly discuss it to be. If the tensioner overshoots and then comes back to reference, all within the time span of <1/2 a second, I don't think there's any issue other than any systematic difference. As we all generally agree upon, provided the operator is consistent in their process, the only thing that really needs to be considered is ones' reference stiffness/tension delta versus another operator.

I think you're glorifying the NEOS a liiiiittle bit here. I agree that the stringer is as big a variable as the tensioner (if not much, much bigger), but since the tensioning system of a crank relies on the operator, there is a consistency variable regardless implied. Saying that there's no need for a 10% compensation is also a little extreme. The 'rule of thumb' of 10% is due to a systematic difference, not strictly as a variable of pull angle. CP machines often have 360 degree rotation, thus they pull at a lower angle, does this mean the 10% rule of thumb should have an asterisk with it? I don't personally think so. I also think that the overshoot issue is more minor than we commonly discuss it to be. If the tensioner overshoots and then comes back to reference, all within the time span of <1/2 a second, I don't think there's any issue other than any systematic difference. As we all generally agree upon, provided the operator is consistent in their process, the only thing that really needs to be considered is ones' reference stiffness/tension delta versus another operator.

If you ever get overly curious, I got a buddy in your neck of the woods that has possession of my old MS200TT DA system. Just let me know, I can grab his machine and let you demo.

Click to expand...

Now you've opened up a can of worms on me! I was checking out the Stringway web site and was wondering where I might be able to demo their clamps and mounting system -- they look pretty sweet. Because you know, it's that time of year again, where for no particular reason at all, I start considering getting a new machine (again)

Here is something I had posted a while back that might help. ...
The fact that the Neos 1000 does not have 306 degrees of rotation is more of a benefit than a negative. As a result of having the tension head located higher, is the primary reasons that you do not have to add 10% of tension when comparing it to a electronic constant pull machine this is because the string is being pulled straight from the string hole with out causing any friction. If the tension head was positioned lower allowing for 360 rotation the tension head would be pulling the string out of the frame downward causing friction causing tension loss...

Click to expand...

True but...

I have a Gamma with a Wise and a Gamma adapter that also pulls at the string bed level. When the strings are pulled at the centers (top to bottom and side to side) I see tension close to reference tension but when I pull on each string working out from the centers the tension drops. On a stringer that has constant pull each time you go out from the centers the angle at the frame remains more constant. Instead of pulling down at the centers you are pulling sideways from the corners. Not saying one method is any better than the other but something to think about. I did a video on that tension loss I can look it up if you're interested. I think I lost about one pound (or bett) on each string working out from the centers.

My stringway CP is so consistent that I actually could feel someone into thinking I know what I am doing.

Click to expand...

Which Stringway do you have? I've always wanted to see a video of one in action. All I've ever been able to find on youtube are some stock videos that don't really demonstrate the full scope of what the machine can do and how, exactly, it operates.

I'm particularly interested to see a video one one of their high-end electronic models.

Which Stringway do you have? I've always wanted to see a video of one in action. All I've ever been able to find on youtube are some stock videos that don't really demonstrate the full scope of what the machine can do and how, exactly, it operates.

I'm particularly interested to see a video one one of their high-end electronic models.

Edit: and yes, the clamps are as sticky as they look without some sort of lube (graphite or silicone spray)

Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't know what it is, but lately I cannot get my base clamps to glide as smoothly as I want, no matter what I do. CLP Break Free used to be awesome, but it just isn't working the same. I dunno, maybe my standards have gotten to high. I like to move the base clamps by grabbing the string clamps, but one of the techs at Gamma even told me that the run clearance just isn't big enough to do that really. That you basically need to move the clamps at the bases.

But I'm not satisfied. I was wondering if the Stringway system way somehow all rainbows an unicorns, but this video with the sticky clamps perhaps suggests otherwise.

But who knows -- maybe some sort of lube works better on the Stringway system.

Which Stringway do you have? I've always wanted to see a video of one in action. All I've ever been able to find on youtube are some stock videos that don't really demonstrate the full scope of what the machine can do and how, exactly, it operates.

I'm particularly interested to see a video one one of their high-end electronic models.

Click to expand...

Here are two I found. Both are excellent machines. I like the T92 clamps on the 2nd video.

Interesting. I don't know what it is, but lately I cannot get my base clamps to glide as smoothly as I want, no matter what I do. CLP Break Free used to be awesome, but it just isn't working the same. I dunno, maybe my standards have gotten to high. I like to move the base clamps by grabbing the string clamps, but one of the techs at Gamma even told me that the run clearance just isn't big enough to do that really. That you basically need to move the clamps at the bases.

But I'm not satisfied. I was wondering if the Stringway system way somehow all rainbows an unicorns, but this video with the sticky clamps perhaps suggests otherwise.

But who knows -- maybe some sort of lube works better on the Stringway system.

EDIT: Thanks for posting!

Click to expand...

Those clamps are very capable of moving very smoothly, they just get sticky pretty rapidly. The bases are AWESOME though, really nice locking action.

As far as the gamma, I've had one SUPER problematic clamp since I got my 5800. Recently I tried some wax on the turn table which was a huge mistake -- the tracks gummed up a lot and I cleaned it thoroughly with rubbing alcohol, no lube, and then somehow the clamps started gliding extremely smoothly... I'm not sure what happened, tbh. I unscrewed (and leave unscrewed) the two hex cap bolts on the bottom holding the plastic retaining block for the clamps. I can just slide out the plastic retaining block at my leisure now. This is convenient for upkeep and cleaning, but probably not necessary

Those clamps are very capable of moving very smoothly, they just get sticky pretty rapidly. The bases are AWESOME though, really nice locking action.

As far as the gamma, I've had one SUPER problematic clamp since I got my 5800. Recently I tried some wax on the turn table which was a huge mistake -- the tracks gummed up a lot and I cleaned it thoroughly with rubbing alcohol, no lube, and then somehow the clamps started gliding extremely smoothly... I'm not sure what happened, tbh. I unscrewed (and leave unscrewed) the two hex cap bolts on the bottom holding the plastic retaining block for the clamps. I can just slide out the plastic retaining block at my leisure now. This is convenient for upkeep and cleaning, but probably not necessary

Click to expand...

This is funny because I went through a very similar process. I even tried wax at one point and determined it was a mistake.

And I actually do the same as you -- I leave the bolts removed from the retaining blocks so I can slide them out whenever I want.

In fact, I just got done clearning everything down with rubbing alcohol, and then I sprayed a rag w/ some silicone spray and applied it to the track. I'll give it a try tomorrow probably.